Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Photo: LAUREN VICTORIA BURKE

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is pushed in a wheelchair on Capitol Hill, Monday, May 23, 2005, after his visit to the Capitol Medical Department. The Supreme Court, re-entering the politically charged abortion debate amid burgeoning speculation about Rehnquist's retirement, agreed Monday to hear a state appeal seeking to reinstate a law requiring parental notification before minors can terminate their pregnancies. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke) less

Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is pushed in a wheelchair on Capitol Hill, Monday, May 23, 2005, after his visit to the Capitol Medical Department. The Supreme Court, re-entering the ... more

2005-05-24 04:00:00 PDT Washington -- The Supreme Court accepted its first abortion case in five years Monday, an unexpected development that is likely to add even more heat to the already superheated atmosphere surrounding the court and its immediate future.

The new case is an appeal by the state of New Hampshire of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down a parental-notification requirement for minors seeking abortions.

The Supreme Court has dealt with parental-notice statutes for many years and has upheld those that contain safeguards for minors, including the option of bypassing the notice requirement by going before a judge. This case presents, among other issues, a question that the court has not previously addressed: exceptions to the notification requirement for health concerns.

The court's answer could be important for its consideration of future abortion cases, including cases challenging the recent federal law that prohibits the procedure that abortion opponents call "partial birth abortion." That law has been declared unconstitutional in U.S. district courts around the country, and appeals by the Bush administration are now pending in three federal appeals courts.

Those cases are likely to reach the Supreme Court in its next term, increasing the visibility and volatility of the abortion issue in what may be a transitional time for the court in view of the likely retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist has, however, been a consistent dissenter from the court's decisions upholding the right to abortion, so his replacement would not be likely to shift the balance on the court.

Rehnquist, 80, has thyroid cancer and was seen being wheeled Monday into the Capitol, apparently for medical treatment.

One question facing the court in the current case is whether parental- notice laws, or by extension, any abortion regulations, must explicitly provide exceptions for those whose continued pregnancy is a threat to their health. Beginning with Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and including the court's most recent decision, which invalidated Nebraska's "partial birth" abortion law in 2000, the court has held that the government may not constitutionally ban an abortion necessary to preserve a pregnant woman's health.

The New Hampshire parental-notice law, enacted in 2003, provides an exception for minors whose lives are threatened by pregnancy, but it does not include a more general health exception. It was in part on this basis that the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston declared the law unconstitutional last November.

The state is arguing that a teenager with a health problem can go before a judge, who can take health into account even though the statute itself does not mention it. The First Circuit found this argument inadequate.

At present, 33 states have a parental notice or consent law for parents of girls younger than 18 seeking an abortion. In 10 other states, parental involvement laws have been adopted but are not being enforced because of legal disputes.

A 1987 California law required minors to have their parents' consent before getting an abortion, but it never took effect. In 1997, the state Supreme Court tossed the law out, saying it violated a minor's right to privacy.

In other action

Other developments at the Supreme Court:

-- Turned aside, 5-4, an appeal by a Mexican citizen on Death Row who contends he and 50 other Mexicans should have their death sentences overturned because they were improperly denied legal help from their consulates. (The case is Medellin vs. Dretke, 04-5928.)

-- Ruled 7-2 it is unconstitutional to force capital murder defendants to appear before juries in chains and shackles. (Deck vs. Missouri, 04-5293.)

-- Ruled unanimously that Hawaii did not overstep its authority when it moved to keep gasoline prices in line by imposing caps on the rent paid by dealer-run stations. (Lingle vs. Chevron USA, 04-163.)

-- Ruled 6-3 that states may bar a political party from opening its primary election to members of another party. (Clingman vs. Beaver, 04-37.)

Source: Associated Press

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.